Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 645 posts

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#581

Post by DataWorker »

buss wrote: post #478
tryitnow wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be YIMBY, but I doubt more construction would lead to lower costs of living. When I researched this I couldn't find any strong evidence suggesting that more building would lead to more affordable housing. You would think that more construction would lead to more affordable housing, but it seems like more construction doesn't just increase supply, it also increases demand, which can offset any price effects…

There's absolutely zero evidence of "induced demand" for housing. And all available evidence suggests that 1: SF & CA have huge shortages of homes and 2: Building more is a good solution. Please see this non-exhaustive list of things which all show building more housing leads to housing affordability. * http://cityobservatory.org/another-housing-myth-debunked-nei... * https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/201…

Agree with points 1 and 2. But build the homes in less dense areas where they be seen by the community as a net positive. Or add to existing density where appropriate. Try to add density in the suburbs is inefficient at best, frankly I’m not sure what it solves.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#582

Post by DataWorker »

ScottBurson wrote: post #502
buss wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's absolutely zero evidence of "induced demand" for housing. And all available evidence suggests that 1: SF & CA have huge shortages of homes and 2: Building more is a good solution. Please see this non-exhaustive list of things which all show building more housing leads to housing affordability. * http://cityobservatory.org/another-housing-myth-debunked-nei... * https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/201…

While I vigorously support more construction in the SF metro area, I think expectations need to be set correctly as to the amount of construction required to actually bring prices down, instead of just slowing their rate of increase. It's a lot . I don't recall all the numbers, but I believe I saw something suggesting that we need to increase the rate of housing starts by a factor of 4 just to stabilize prices. To ac…

You will just increase the number of unaffordable apartments. The added units will come with added traffic from the new wealthier residents, and higher prices on everything. It doesn’t seem like a win to me, unless you have very narrow goals.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#583

Post by masonic »

njarboe wrote: post #311
hcknwscommenter wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if you live in the Bay Area you probably meet that qualification" Only if you are leaving the Bay Area. Often, these older houses have a lot of deferred maintenance and the retired seller wants to downsize into something in the Bay Area that is newer build/renovated.

And you can't leave the Bay Area as the transfer has to be in the same county in most cases.

Proposition 5 would have made this fully portable throughout the state and freed up a lot of Bay Area real estate, but it was defeated.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_5,_Property_T...

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#584

Post by masonic »

fortran77 wrote: post #515
tathougies wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no republicans in california. Like, the CA republican party is completely defunct at this point, and I am a (former) California republican; now a republican in another liberal state.

I am a registered republican, and I live in 94087

So you're the one!

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#585

Post by kofejnik »

hannasanarion wrote: post #305
moultano wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are absolutely correct that the root cause of the housing crisis is capitalism and the commodification of housing. Every other commodity in my life, food for instance, is dirt cheap and getting cheaper all the time. Housing is expensive because it is not a commodity. You have to beg the government to allow it to exist.

If housing was not a commodity, then it could not be bought and traded with fluctuations of value and expectations of profit on the part of the owners. The cost of housing would not be a problem if it was priced for the benefit it provides, instead of its profit potential.

yeah, housing should not be a commodity and should not be subject to market forces; instead, a benevolent committee of compassionate people (well-read into marxism, of course) should decide who gets to live where

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#586

Post by kofejnik »

joefkelley wrote: post #249
collias wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, and I feel like this is something that is frequently either downplayed or willfully ignored. If I live in California where home prices are sky-high, and I've saved up for nearly a decade for a house, why would I be willing to allow legislation that would likely devalue my biggest asset (by far) that I saved and sacrificed so diligently for? This is a legitimate question, not trying to be a jerk. I'm gen…

The tough thing is of course you are right. It's obviously in your best interest to vote against new housing if you own a house. But it's not in society's best interest.

> But it's not in society's best interest.

1. why are you so sure? What makes you an authority on the whole society's interests? 2. even if so, are you saying that collective interests trump individual rights? This is socialism 101. Government will decide who should live (and work) where, and who should own what.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#587

Post by barry-cotter »

tryitnow wrote: post #469
buss wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100% I'm very involved with YIMBY Action here in SF: I'm on the board of both YIMBY Action and YIMBY Law, and I'm also running for local office in the current election: https://buss2020.org If you have any questions about YIMBY, send them my way!

I used to be YIMBY, but I doubt more construction would lead to lower costs of living. When I researched this I couldn't find any strong evidence suggesting that more building would lead to more affordable housing. You would think that more construction would lead to more affordable housing, but it seems like more construction doesn't just increase supply, it also increases demand, which can offset any price effects…

> When I researched this I couldn't find any strong evidence suggesting that more building would lead to more affordable housing.

Tokyo's population has grown 1.5X over the last two decades while rents and property prices have been essentially flat.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#588

Post by RangerScience »

mlyle wrote: post #559
RangerScience wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm. I like the sentiment, but I'd be worried about the implementation (sounds like complex tax math) and with potential downsides (make less money when selling could lead to selling less; I can imagine a housing bubble popping and you end up under water due to owed taxes when the property was worth more). Although, if other states do it, should be data to talk to those predictions...

> Hmm. I like the sentiment, but I'd be worried about the implementation (sounds like complex tax math) You already need to keep track of two assessed values for prop 13, along with history for catch-up basis increase. All you need to keep track of here is original tax rate (to know the maximum for this year) and deferred amount. > I can imagine a housing bubble popping and you end up under water due to owed taxes wh…

> No one's guaranteed to make money on every asset.

There's a difference between "I have lost money on this thing" and "I owe more because I sold this thing".

By a house (debt-free) for $100, and, say, tax of $1. Something happens for a decade, so it's worth $1000, tax of $10 per year for 10 years; $90 is deferred. Later, thing un-happens and more, now house is worth $60, with $90 in deferred tax, so if you sell it... you end up owing $30, for a net loss of $70, instead of the $50 in loss on the asset?

...or is there something I'm getting really, really wrong?

Seems simpler (and safer) to say property tax doesn't change (instead of accumulating interest-free debt), and profit from selling is capital gains, but I know jack shit about this stuff and am willing to be wrong.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#589

Post by nostrebored »

greedo wrote: post #270
_hardwaregeek wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I don't think communities should go away. Cities can have communities if you build them in the right way. I just think these communities need to evolve from the particular format of a single family house with a lawn, car and garage. Plus I'm a little perplexed at the library analogy. I'm not saying we need to lower funding or anything. If anything we should be pumping more money into suburbs so that they can build…

It's the idea that if someone doesn't like something, it doesn't matter if others do. In my town, a typical midwest college town, we have suburbs, we have more urban areas with smaller/older houses in row neighborhoods. We have apartments galore, and condos in downtown areas. A bit of something for everyone. Expecting a community to "evolve" means losing something of this. Other than young people who want to live in…

'apartment living is no fun with families'

... why?

I've lived in apartments with my family for the last three years. It's honestly been great.

Re: California’s housing crisis: how a bureaucrat pushed to build

#590

Post by makomk »

nostrademons wrote: post #113
i_am_nomad wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the school bus is a public good. Are you saying that we should reframe housing as a public good as well and provide it as such?

There's no need to assume this. Even if you treat land & housing as a private good, you're entitled to decide what you do with your own land . You're not entitled to decide what other people do with their land. Zoning laws, development restrictions, and HOAs violate this principle - they give existing homeowners a collective power to decide what other homeowners can do with their private property. This makes housing…

Which is the fundamental problem with the whole YIMBY business: solving California's housing crisis requires dense housing, which is much more severely affected by what other homeowners and land-owners do than low density housing with large plots. The only way to avoid loud music blaring from the neighbouring units all day and night, or someone building a wall right in front of all your windows and removing all daylight, or an art gallery setting up shop across the street with an endless stream of visitors looking right into your home, or any of the endless other possible issues is through collective control over what others do with their property. Making everyone personally own the land needed to stop this happening is so inefficient that anything denser than American-style suburbs is impossible.

So long as this idea is a a fundamental plank of YIMBY-ism, all of the pretty claims about how high-density living doesn't have to be a dystopian hellscape are literally worthless, because every one of them relies totally on things outside the residents' control that the YIMBYs will be first in line to try and destroy.

Post reply on HN